Do we support the Marketplace Fairness Act?

TGD Point (paraphrased) - "This puts internet sellers on the same footing as brick and mortar stores."BBS's Argument (paraphrased) - "Taxes [when not linked to state benefits granted] are bad. Therefore this tax is bad."

A fine argument. One that I agree with on a general basis. But why have that discussion in what is ostensibly a discussion about the taxation of products sold over the internet and not about taxation generally? Is "taxes are bad" tangentially relevant? Sure. Is it relevant in the context of explaining why brick-and-mortar stores and internet companies are now on equal footing? No.

To go back to my analogy, in a thread about eminent domain and contract law, bringing up the environmental impact of fracking is irrelevant to the conversation. Is it tangentially relevant? Yes. Is it relevant in the context of responding to a post about contract law? Of course not; it's just white noise.

If I didn't know you better, I would accuse you of trying to change the discussion to suit your particular knowledge and interests (e.g. Player in every thread). But I acknowledge that I'm incredibly egotistical and jumped at the chance to provide knowledgeable insight in this thread... and you've made me angry because you're typing stuff that I think, as an expert, is irrelevant, but it also happens to be stuff that I agree with.

Oh, I see. Yeah, we're talking about two different subjects. I'm addressing people who see the necessity of the tax (Brucewars, now AAFitz, etc.), and you're addressing some other issue.

We'll just not talk to each other ITT if that makes you happy because neither of us seems interested in each other's topic.

DoomYoshi wrote:I can drive to Buffalo, pay New York sales tax and then get refunded that tax when I cross back into Canada.

Well that sounds like a Canadian Issue to me that the gov of Canada needs to work out. Why does Canada give you back those taxes when you cross back over?

It wouldn't be Canada that would refund you the taxes, it would be New York State.

Not all, but most, jurisdictions follow the doctrine that sales tax is for goods consumed locally and not for export. Thus, if you can prove that you are taking the goods out of their jurisdiction, you are an exporting and exempt to sales tax. If you already paid them, then those would be refundable.

Surely you've seen mail-order catalogues and whatnot, with "California residents add such-and-such sales tax" if they're in California or "Illinois residents add such-and-such sales tax" if they're in Illinois. That's the same doctrine. Only goods consumed locally are subject to those sales taxes, and if you're taking them out of the place they are sold, then you are not exempt.

OK so for Canada to fix this problem, then you need Canada to impose an Import Tax so that people do not want to drive to the US to buy goods or rather make it even for both sides of the boarder.

What, and piss-off our biggest trading partner?!

By imposing an import tax on items bought online or brought back by people will not cause that big of a rift between the US and Canada. When we American's go over to Mexico we have to pay a tax on items we bring back. Seems logical to me.

I would suggest that Mexico's power over the US is rather insignificant compared to the US's power over Canada.

Night Strike wrote:No one has yet to explain how it's "fair" to force an internet business to collect taxes for 9000 jurisdictions when brick and mortar stores only have to collect taxes for 1 jurisdiction.

Night Strike wrote:No one has yet to explain how it's "fair" to force an internet business to collect taxes for 9000 jurisdictions when brick and mortar stores only have to collect taxes for 1 jurisdiction.

Hmm.. perhaps it should depend on how many jurisdictions each type of business conducts their business in.

Bruceswar wrote:

Timminz wrote:

Bruceswar wrote:

Timminz wrote:I would suggest that Mexico's power over the US is rather insignificant compared to the US's power over Canada.

So how do you suppose Canada fix its problem.

Which problem?

The problem of Canadians coming to the US to shop to save the tax.

It's the US that's giving them back the taxes they spent. Canada isn't the one losing out.

How do you suppose any country stop people from going to another country to take advantage of the things that country does/allows, that their home country does not?

Night Strike wrote:No one has yet to explain how it's "fair" to force an internet business to collect taxes for 9000 jurisdictions when brick and mortar stores only have to collect taxes for 1 jurisdiction.

Don't brick and mortar stores like, say Walmart, collect taxes over more than one jurisdiction? Do you think they should pay sales tax in places where they sell?

Yeah, and those sales taxes are handled by those specific stores because the money from each store is tracked independently. Plus, there are a lot more businesses that sell on the internet than just the giant corporations.

Timminz wrote:

Night Strike wrote:No one has yet to explain how it's "fair" to force an internet business to collect taxes for 9000 jurisdictions when brick and mortar stores only have to collect taxes for 1 jurisdiction.

Hmm.. perhaps it should depend on how many jurisdictions each type of business conducts their business in.

If they sell their products online, they potentially conduct business in every single one of those jurisdictions.

Night Strike wrote:No one has yet to explain how it's "fair" to force an internet business to collect taxes for 9000 jurisdictions when brick and mortar stores only have to collect taxes for 1 jurisdiction.

Don't brick and mortar stores like, say Walmart, collect taxes over more than one jurisdiction? Do you think they should pay sales tax in places where they sell?

Yeah, and those sales taxes are handled by those specific stores because the money from each store is tracked independently. Plus, there are a lot more businesses that sell on the internet than just the giant corporations..

Are you saying that larger businesses should be taxed more harshly? If so, I'm on board.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Night Strike wrote:No one has yet to explain how it's "fair" to force an internet business to collect taxes for 9000 jurisdictions when brick and mortar stores only have to collect taxes for 1 jurisdiction.

Hmm.. perhaps it should depend on how many jurisdictions each type of business conducts their business in.

If they sell their products online, they potentially conduct business in every single one of those jurisdictions.[/quote]

So why should one company be allowed to conduct business in a particular jurisdiction without collecting the sales tax that other companies are required to collect (often times, selling the exact same product)? If tax policies are not applied evenly, it creates an unfair playing field. Why should an online retailer be allowed to sell the same product, at the same markup, while charging less to the consumer? All that will do is encourage people to buy more products online, to the detriment of local economies.

Night Strike wrote:No one has yet to explain how it's "fair" to force an internet business to collect taxes for 9000 jurisdictions when brick and mortar stores only have to collect taxes for 1 jurisdiction.

Hmm.. perhaps it should depend on how many jurisdictions each type of business conducts their business in.

If they sell their products online, they potentially conduct business in every single one of those jurisdictions.

So why should one company be allowed to conduct business in a particular jurisdiction without collecting the sales tax that other companies are required to collect (often times, selling the exact same product)? If tax policies are not applied evenly, it creates an unfair playing field. Why should an online retailer be allowed to sell the same product, at the same markup, while charging less to the consumer? All that will do is encourage people to buy more products online, to the detriment of local economies.

Except the new legislation just tips the "unfair playing field" in the other direction. If you want everything to be fair, then all business transactions would have taxes collected based on where they buyer lives. The current law only forces that collection burden on internet transactions. Where is the "fairness" in that?

Night Strike wrote:No one has yet to explain how it's "fair" to force an internet business to collect taxes for 9000 jurisdictions when brick and mortar stores only have to collect taxes for 1 jurisdiction.

Hmm.. perhaps it should depend on how many jurisdictions each type of business conducts their business in.

If they sell their products online, they potentially conduct business in every single one of those jurisdictions.

So why should one company be allowed to conduct business in a particular jurisdiction without collecting the sales tax that other companies are required to collect (often times, selling the exact same product)? If tax policies are not applied evenly, it creates an unfair playing field. Why should an online retailer be allowed to sell the same product, at the same markup, while charging less to the consumer? All that will do is encourage people to buy more products online, to the detriment of local economies.

Except the new legislation just tips the "unfair playing field" in the other direction. If you want everything to be fair, then all business transactions would have taxes collected based on where they buyer lives. The current law only forces that collection burden on internet transactions. Where is the "fairness" in that?

It doesn't create an unlevel playing field. As I stated on the previous page, any company, regardless of whether it does so over the internet or via catalog, sells taxable product to a state in which such company is not based, it is subject to sales tax. So, if Bob's General Store (a local Pennsylvania retailer) sells product into New Jersey, it has to collect sales tax. Same as if it's Bobsgeneralstore.com.

Night Strike wrote:No one has yet to explain how it's "fair" to force an internet business to collect taxes for 9000 jurisdictions when brick and mortar stores only have to collect taxes for 1 jurisdiction.

Hmm.. perhaps it should depend on how many jurisdictions each type of business conducts their business in.

If they sell their products online, they potentially conduct business in every single one of those jurisdictions.

So why should one company be allowed to conduct business in a particular jurisdiction without collecting the sales tax that other companies are required to collect (often times, selling the exact same product)? If tax policies are not applied evenly, it creates an unfair playing field. Why should an online retailer be allowed to sell the same product, at the same markup, while charging less to the consumer? All that will do is encourage people to buy more products online, to the detriment of local economies.

Except the new legislation just tips the "unfair playing field" in the other direction. If you want everything to be fair, then all business transactions would have taxes collected based on where they buyer lives. The current law only forces that collection burden on internet transactions. Where is the "fairness" in that?

It's not about where anyone lives. It's about where they acquire the product, otherwise known as where the sale takes place. Hence the name, sales tax.

thegreekdog wrote:It doesn't create an unlevel playing field. As I stated on the previous page, any company, regardless of whether it does so over the internet or via catalog, sells taxable product to a state in which such company is not based, it is subject to sales tax. So, if Bob's General Store (a local Pennsylvania retailer) sells product into New Jersey, it has to collect sales tax. Same as if it's Bobsgeneralstore.com.

Yes, the field is still unlevel. If there is a local business that does not sell products online, they only collect sales taxes based on the location of their store. If you want a fair playing field, they should collect taxes based on where the purchaser lives since that's the way internet transaction would be taxed.

thegreekdog wrote:It doesn't create an unlevel playing field. As I stated on the previous page, any company, regardless of whether it does so over the internet or via catalog, sells taxable product to a state in which such company is not based, it is subject to sales tax. So, if Bob's General Store (a local Pennsylvania retailer) sells product into New Jersey, it has to collect sales tax. Same as if it's Bobsgeneralstore.com.

Yes, the field is still unlevel. If there is a local business that does not sell products online, they only collect sales taxes based on the location of their store. If you want a fair playing field, they should collect taxes based on where the purchaser lives since that's the way internet transaction would be taxed.

I don't think that the rate of purchases of people that drive across state lines and buy something is significant enough compared to online purchases to suggest that it's an uneven playing field.

thegreekdog wrote:It doesn't create an unlevel playing field. As I stated on the previous page, any company, regardless of whether it does so over the internet or via catalog, sells taxable product to a state in which such company is not based, it is subject to sales tax. So, if Bob's General Store (a local Pennsylvania retailer) sells product into New Jersey, it has to collect sales tax. Same as if it's Bobsgeneralstore.com.

Yes, the field is still unlevel. If there is a local business that does not sell products online, they only collect sales taxes based on the location of their store. If you want a fair playing field, they should collect taxes based on where the purchaser lives since that's the way internet transaction would be taxed.

I don't think that the rate of purchases of people that drive across state lines and buy something is significant enough compared to online purchases to suggest that it's an uneven playing field.

BMO

So? The government is supposed to ensure a level playing field for all businesses, not just the ones it likes. Besides, this shouldn't just apply to selling across state lines. A business should be required to collect the sales tax for a person who lives in the neighboring town and remit the payment to the other town. Because that would ensure fairness.

thegreekdog wrote:It doesn't create an unlevel playing field. As I stated on the previous page, any company, regardless of whether it does so over the internet or via catalog, sells taxable product to a state in which such company is not based, it is subject to sales tax. So, if Bob's General Store (a local Pennsylvania retailer) sells product into New Jersey, it has to collect sales tax. Same as if it's Bobsgeneralstore.com.

Yes, the field is still unlevel. If there is a local business that does not sell products online, they only collect sales taxes based on the location of their store. If you want a fair playing field, they should collect taxes based on where the purchaser lives since that's the way internet transaction would be taxed.

I don't think that the rate of purchases of people that drive across state lines and buy something is significant enough compared to online purchases to suggest that it's an uneven playing field.

BMO

So? The government is supposed to ensure a level playing field for all businesses, not just the ones it likes. Besides, this shouldn't just apply to selling across state lines. A business should be required to collect the sales tax for a person who lives in the neighboring town and remit the payment to the other town. Because that would ensure fairness.

It is fair. If you live in a state without a sales tax you don't pay a sales tax.

As far as being fair how is it fair that only brick and mortar businesses collect sales tax? If that drives consumers to purchase online (and I don't think it makes that much of a difference) doesn't that make it unfair to the brick and mortar business?

Evil Semp wrote:As far as being fair how is it fair that only brick and mortar businesses collect sales tax? If that drives consumers to purchase online (and I don't think it makes that much of a difference) doesn't that make it unfair to the brick and mortar business?

Because the brick and mortar store is actually regulated by that government while also having the ability to participate in the setting of those tax rates. And if a business practice is unfair to a brick and mortar store, their role is to adapt to the new dynamics to make a product. They don't get to run and cry to the government for special treatment....that's crony capitalism, aka non-free-market.

thegreekdog wrote:It doesn't create an unlevel playing field. As I stated on the previous page, any company, regardless of whether it does so over the internet or via catalog, sells taxable product to a state in which such company is not based, it is subject to sales tax. So, if Bob's General Store (a local Pennsylvania retailer) sells product into New Jersey, it has to collect sales tax. Same as if it's Bobsgeneralstore.com.

Yes, the field is still unlevel. If there is a local business that does not sell products online, they only collect sales taxes based on the location of their store. If you want a fair playing field, they should collect taxes based on where the purchaser lives since that's the way internet transaction would be taxed.

Yes, that is precisely what is going to happen with sales that are delivered (at least that's my understanding).